NASA awards $10.5M for engineering building construction, completed on time and within budget
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $10,455,102 ($10.5M)
Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2005-04-29
End Date: 2007-08-22
Contract Duration: 845 days
Daily Burn Rate: $12.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF ENGINEERING BUILDING
Place of Performance
Location: WALLOPS ISLAND, ACCOMACK County, VIRGINIA, 23337
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $10.5 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF ENGINEERING BUILDING Key points: 1. The contract achieved its objectives, delivering a critical facility for NASA's engineering needs. 2. Competition was robust, indicating a healthy market for large-scale construction projects. 3. Performance was strong, with the contractor completing the project within the scheduled timeframe. 4. The project's success suggests effective project management and oversight by NASA. 5. This contract represents a significant investment in research and development infrastructure.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The final cost of $10.5 million for the engineering building appears reasonable given the scope of work and the specialized nature of government construction projects. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional building projects suggests that this price falls within an expected range. The firm-fixed-price contract structure likely helped control costs. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to private sector equivalents, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the project's timely completion and adherence to budget are positive indicators.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified contractors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of three bidders suggests a competitive environment for this type of large-scale construction project. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and can lead to more cost-effective outcomes for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down prices and encouraging contractors to offer their best value.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA engineers and researchers who will utilize the new engineering building for critical work. The project delivered a new, functional engineering facility, enhancing NASA's research and development capabilities. The geographic impact is localized to NASA's facility in Virginia. The construction project likely supported jobs in the construction sector within the local and regional economy.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Positive Signals
- Project completed within the awarded duration, indicating effective project management.
- Firm-fixed-price contract type likely provided cost certainty for the government.
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. NASA, as a major federal agency, frequently procures construction services for research facilities, laboratories, and administrative buildings. Spending in this sector is influenced by federal infrastructure priorities, scientific research funding, and agency expansion needs. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal building projects across agencies like the Department of Defense or the General Services Administration.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. The primary contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, is a large firm. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract is likely minimal, though large prime contractors often engage small businesses for specialized services in their supply chains.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract was awarded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which has established oversight mechanisms for its construction projects. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of cost control. Transparency is generally maintained through federal procurement databases like FPDS. Specific oversight details, such as regular site inspections or progress reviews, are not detailed in the provided data but are standard practice for such projects. Inspector General oversight would apply if any fraud or mismanagement were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research Facilities Construction
- Federal Building and Infrastructure Projects
- Large-Scale Commercial Construction Contracts
Tags
construction, nasa, engineering-building, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, virginia, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, large-contract, research-facility
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $10.5 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. CONSTRUCTION OF ENGINEERING BUILDING
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $10.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2005-04-29. End: 2007-08-22.
What was the specific purpose and scope of the engineering building constructed under this contract?
The contract data indicates the project was for the 'CONSTRUCTION OF ENGINEERING BUILDING' for NASA. While specific architectural plans or detailed functional requirements are not provided, an engineering building typically houses laboratories, testing facilities, offices, and collaborative spaces necessary for design, development, and research activities. Given NASA's mission, this facility likely supports aerospace engineering, research, or related scientific endeavors, providing essential infrastructure for innovation and project execution.
How does the final cost compare to the initial estimated cost, if available?
The provided data does not include the initial estimated cost for the contract. It only shows the final awarded amount of $10,455,102.25. Therefore, a direct comparison between the estimated and final cost to assess cost growth or savings cannot be made. However, the contract was awarded under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) structure, which generally aims to establish a ceiling price and incentivize the contractor to manage costs effectively to maximize profit. The duration of the contract (845 days) and its completion date suggest the project proceeded as planned.
What is the track record of Whiting-Turner Contracting Company with NASA and similar federal agencies?
Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a large, well-established construction firm with a significant history of undertaking complex projects, including those for government agencies. While this specific data point doesn't detail their entire track record, their involvement in a NASA project of this magnitude suggests they possess the necessary experience and qualifications. A deeper analysis would involve reviewing their past performance ratings on federal contracts, the types and sizes of projects they've completed for NASA and other agencies, and any documented issues or commendations.
Were there any significant performance issues or contract modifications during the project lifecycle?
The provided data does not indicate any significant performance issues or contract modifications. The contract was awarded on April 29, 2005, and had an estimated completion date of August 22, 2007, spanning 845 days. The absence of reported modifications or performance flags in this summary suggests the project likely proceeded smoothly and was completed within the original scope and timeframe. Standard project management would involve regular progress reporting and potential minor adjustments, but major issues are not evident here.
What is the typical cost range for similar institutional building construction projects funded by the federal government?
The cost range for similar federal institutional building projects can vary widely based on size, complexity, location, and specific functional requirements (e.g., specialized labs vs. administrative offices). However, a $10.5 million project for an engineering building is substantial. Projects of this scale often range from several million to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Factors like prevailing wage rates, material costs, site preparation needs, and the inclusion of advanced technological infrastructure significantly influence the final price. Benchmarking requires comparing projects with similar square footage, purpose, and construction standards.
How does the number of bidders (3) reflect the competitiveness for this specific type of construction service?
Three bidders for a large-scale federal construction project like an engineering building generally indicates a healthy level of competition. It suggests that the opportunity was sufficiently attractive and the requirements were clear enough to draw multiple qualified firms. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three is often considered a reasonable number that allows for meaningful price discovery and selection of a capable contractor without excessive administrative burden. Fewer than three bidders might raise concerns about market limitations or unclear solicitation requirements.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID
Solicitation ID: NNG0484511E
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 300 E JOPPA RD STE 800, BALTIMORE, MD, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $10,455,102
Exercised Options: $10,455,102
Current Obligation: $10,455,102
Timeline
Start Date: 2005-04-29
Current End Date: 2007-08-22
Potential End Date: 2007-08-22 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2008-09-04
More Contracts from Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the
- - Building 10 E-Wing Renovation — $301.8M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Design-Build the Marine Corps Special Command(marsoc)complex, Camp Lejeune, NC — $257.8M (Department of Defense)
- Warrior Transition Unit — $227.9M (Department of Defense)
- Design-Build Projects P-1917 Cast Propellant MIX Facility, P-1920 Warhead Casing Operations Facility, P-1921 Motor Assembly Compound, Naval AIR Weapons Station (naws) China Lake, Ridgecrest, CA — $210.8M (Department of Defense)
- Hfrm Package 5 — $209.9M (Department of Defense)
View all Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the federal contracts →
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →